2017 (5) TMI 1779 - HC - Central Excise

Validity of SCN - time limitation - HELD THAT - Issue Notice returnable on 14th June, 2017. By way of ad-interim relief, the respondents are restrained from taking any coercive action pursuant to the impugned order-inoriginal.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to impugned order-in-original on several grounds, validity of show cause notice, reliance on earlier orders by Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
The petitioners, represented by Mr. Mihir Joshi, Senior Advocate, and Mr. Dhaval Shah, Advocate, challenged the impugned order-in-original on various grounds. They highlighted that the adjudicating authority was made aware of a previous order dated 05.02.1998 by the Commissioner (Appeals) in favor of the assessee. Additionally, attention was drawn to a subsequent order dated 04.02.2003 by the Commissioner (Appeals) following the earlier order, which was disregarded by the adjudicating authority. The petitioners argued that the findings in the 1998 order were wrongly considered as mere observations. Moreover, they contended that the show cause notice was invalid due to being time-barred.

Upon considering the submissions made by the petitioners' counsel, the court noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had already ruled in favor of the assessee in the 1998 order. Consequently, the court issued a Notice returnable on 14th June 2017. As an interim measure, the respondents were prohibited from taking any coercive action based on the impugned order-in-original. Furthermore, direct service was permitted concerning respondent No.2.

This judgment primarily revolves around the challenge to the impugned order-in-original on various grounds, including the validity of the show cause notice and the reliance on previous orders by the Commissioner (Appeals). The court's decision to issue a Notice and grant interim relief indicates a preliminary acknowledgment of the petitioners' contentions regarding the earlier favorable orders and the alleged invalidity of the show cause notice. The case underscores the significance of procedural compliance and the impact of past decisions on current adjudications in legal proceedings.